Scriptural Proof - Abraham's Faith - 3:6-14

As I said earlier, Paulo is developing the session called Probation, that is, the moment in which the arguments are presented and the discussion takes on a more intense tone.

If in the previous text Paul began his arguments with an appeal to the Galatian experience, now he moves on to theological reasons, using, in this block, the biblical argument. It should be noted that this step is chosen carefully. Paul stands on the ground of his opponents, who interpreted the Scriptures by emphasizing the validity of the law for Christians. Paul will use the same Scriptures to say just the opposite.

The text can be divided into two blocks and a conclusion. The first, from v. 6 to 9, uses the example of Abraham to discuss justification by faith. The second, from v. 10 to 13, discusses the presence of the Law in the Christian life. And the conclusion, in v. 14, relates to previous discussions with the Holy Spirit.

The starting point is the life of Abraham. The focus is on their experience of faith and the aftermath of it, which will be contrasted with the Galatians' fascination with life under the law.

It may seem, at first, that the apostle uses the example of Abraham to emphasize justification by faith. Not only that. He uses the example of the father of faith to emphasize the presence and action of the Holy Spirit among his readers (v. 14). Therefore, there is an unusual junction between Abraham and the Holy Spirit in this text.

Paul begins the first block with a statement: “Abraham believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” The topic of justification by faith has been addressed earlier (cf. 2:16). But now it returns on the new connection. The faith that leads to righteousness is presented as a model lived by Abraham, and, in such a way, historically connects all who are saved by faith with the elder (v. 7). In this way, those who believe are children of Abraham. Especially the Gentiles, to whom the gospel was preached already in Abraham (v. 8). Not only that, but it highlights that the blessing experienced by the patriarch falls on those who believe (v. 9).

Obviously, Paul's use of Abraham is intended to emphasize his act of faith rather than the covenantal circumcision made with him (cf. Gen 17) and required of the Galatians by the Judaizers (5:2). In the same way, the apostle intends to deflect the focus of the Mosaic law through the historical argument of the faith that was manifested before the law, and that, consequently, cannot be annulled by it (cf. 3.16-17). The act of faith that makes Abraham righteous not only precedes his other acts, such as the enactment of circumcision but also gives meaning to them. For this very reason, the apostle declares: "Know therefore that they of faith are the children of Abraham" (v. 7). It means, in other words, that circumcision does not make anyone a child of Abraham, as Paul's opponents would argue.

How does Paul argue about Abrahamic sonship by faith? He starts from the expression of Genesis 12.3: "... in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed", quoted in v. 8b, to confirm the announcement of justification to the Gentiles (v. 8a). In this way, he Christologically delimits the blessing of Abraham. The conclusion is that “those of faith are blessed with believing Abraham” (v. 9). Abraham, who for Judaism is the model of obedience to the Torah, becomes Paul the model of faith for Christians.

The second block, of a negative character, turns to the works of the law. Paulo works with binary thinking. If there are those who are walking in faith, following in Abraham's footsteps, what do the others follow? The law. In that case, if the former is blessed, the latter, by logic, is cursed (v. 10). It seems to be a simplistic and radical thought. Paul, however, again takes the Scriptures as proof of what he says. He quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 to remind him that he who tries to do the Law and fails to do so is cursed. This applies to both Jews and Jewish Christians. It could also include the Galatians.

Paul develops the argument from logic. If justification comes by faith, then no other way is needed. Therefore, the law justifies no one (v. 11). He broadens and deepens the argument by asserting that the Law cannot save because it does not come from faith (v. 12). Now we have not only a question of possibility, but of opposition. Faith and Law are opposites. A space is opened here to discuss themes related to the New Perspective on Paul, particularly with regard to the concept of the Law and its role in Pauline Christianity. Júlio has already addressed this topic in posts at the end of May, so I don't think it's necessary to go back to them.

in v. 13 Paul presents the way to escape the curse to which all who live under the Law are subject – Jesus Christ. In doing so there are two purposes. The first is to show the impossibility of those who profess Jesus Christ living under the Law. Jesus freed Christians from the curse of the Law and the Law itself by fulfilling the Law and dying on the cross. Therefore, the whole Law was fulfilled by him, leaving nothing for the Christians. Wanting to live under the Law means rejecting the fullness of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. The second objective is to prepare the Holy Spirit to enter the discussion (v. 14). Leave the curse and move towards the blessing.

The conclusion builds on what was said above. The blessing for the Gentiles, considered as justification by faith (v. 7-9), is now expanded to indicate that faith also leads to the receiving of the Holy Spirit (v. 14). This is the second great blessing for the Christian. The emphasis on faith as the basis for receiving the Spirit is a criticism of the Judaizers who understood the access or fullness of the Spirit as something that would be achieved through the works of the Law (cf. 3.2). Therefore, Paul is taking up the theme of the previous pericope. In it, he appealed to the experience of the Galatians. There is no doubt that they received the Spirit through the preaching of faith (3:2). Now, this same fact is highlighted from the angle of a scriptural witness. And Paul does it with even greater emphasis: The blessing for all peoples, given to Abraham, comes to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ and is consolidated and fulfilled with the presence of the Spirit in their lives.

As a reflection, I have some thoughts.

In the analysis of the previous text, I already wrote a little about the possibility of living under the Law today. Thinking about the text above, I think we can advance the reflection. The most terrible thing about life under the Law is not just the mistake of feeling safe and the often hidden experience of being disappointed in not being able to live up to the Law's standards. The biggest and main problem is that the search for the Law makes life under the Holy Spirit unfeasible. They are incompatible. All Christians live in this dilemma. Pentecostals, who give centrality to the Spirit, repress it with their many rules and norms that can be of a behavioral nature such as clothing, vocabulary; or even spiritual, such as the tyranny of evidence of spiritual gifts, speaking in tongues, of exercising or receiving healings. The traditional ones, in turn, put the Spirit in the background when they emphasize moral issues, which become moralistic, such as sexual behaviors, which are secretly violated, health issues, such as not smoking, not drinking, while at the same time they submit to the judgments of this world, seeking an aesthetic of masculine and feminine beauty that is not at all Christian; radicalize the tithe, while doing everything in their companies to evade the income tax. And much more.

Abraham's blessing, which is not only salvation by faith but also the gift of the Holy Spirit, was exchanged for the life we ​​have under the Law. Consequence? Again we have no room for faith. We do not worship life of sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit who wants to mold us in holiness and make us return to the world and to our neighbor in love. We do not experience the power of the Spirit, whether in conversions, in sensitized hearts, or in healings and portents. We cannot live as a community of the last times, eschatological, inhabited and filled by the Holy Spirit.

Law, Promise, Faith.

In the last post, I commented on the scriptural argument by which Paul affirms the relevance of the blessing of Abraham to all Christians, through the Holy Spirit, at the same time that he declares the impossibility of the Law to bring such a blessing.

In the text that we are now analyzing, he presents more details, seeking to resolve any doubts that may still exist. There is also a concern not to deny the historic role of the law. Such a theme is sensitive since the Law was central to the Judaizing opponents of Paul in the region of Galatia.

The text can be divided into three segments. In the first (3:15-18), Paul makes use of human logic (“I speak as a man,” v. 15) to develop his argument. In the second (3:19-25), he opens a parenthesis to clarify the role of the law. Finally, he makes an application of the discussion to the lives of Gentile Christians (3:26-29).

The use of logic in the first part is related to the field of laws. Probably the choice is made because it is a terminology known among the members of the Roman Empire and that becomes a basis with a good dose of security for the development of the argument. The reasoning begins in a rather calm way to be intensified in the next block.

Paul uses the terminology referring to testaments. Although the Greek term used in v. 15 is diatheke (covenant), usually translated as “covenant”, as Almeida Updated does, the word also means “testament”. In this sense, it was used several times by Josephus in his writings (cf. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, v. 41, Gal. 3:15, CD).

There is a discussion among commentators about the statement that “[...] a covenant/testament [...] once ratified, no one revokes it or adds anything” (v. 15). The point is that Roman legislation allowed the alteration of the contents of a will, as long as it was the will of its proponent. Given this, it seems that Paul bases his logic on the idea that, if it is not the will of the testator, no one can alter the will.

The initial logic is that the contracting parties were God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ, “the” descendant (v. 16). The Pauline interpretation of Gen 12:2-3, 7; 13:15-16ff sounds strange, since the singular term “offspring” that occurs in Genesis, from which Paul derives “seed,” clearly refers to the collectivity, that is, to the many. But Paul takes advantage of grammar to generate a spiritual sense that identifies the descendant with Jesus Christ. This is essential for him. After all, only the parties involved in the will – God, Abraham, and Jesus Christ – could revoke it, which does not happen.

The consequence of this, highlighted by the apostle, is that the Law, important as it was, could not alter the testament. Even because it came four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham (v. 17).

Paul ends his argument with the conclusion: the inheritance does not come from the Law but the promise (v. 18). Of what heritage does he speak? Probably from all the legacy that Abraham's example of faith left for future generations. This is his will. And the origin of the inheritance is the promise made by God to him. The Law failed to do that, the apostle recalls. He repeats, in other words, what he has already said in 3:14, and the emphasis is on the Judaizers, according to whom the Abrahamic heritage was, above all, circumcision, a sign of the covenant and, therefore, necessary for all who believe.

Well, since he again speaks so negatively about the Law, he feels obliged to clarify it. This is the second block of text (3:19-25). It seems that it would be logical to ask: “What, then, is the raison d'être of the law?” Since it was held by Judaism as the foundation on which they built their relationship with God, as a covenant people. Paul's words were shocking to any pious Jew, as well as to Judaizing Christians. He deems it necessary to make some clarifications.

The first is that the Law was “added”, added. Again a shock. That was not how she was conceived. But for Paul, it arose out of a need. It was added because of the "transgressions" of the people. The idea is that, despite the promise and inheritance, the Israelites engaged in practices contrary to what God intended. This made an update necessary, a complement to the heritage that made it possible. But when the descendant came, to whom the promise was made, this addition would no longer make sense and should be taken away.

That is why Paul can answer the question that perhaps still exists: “Is the law contrary to the promises of God? Not at all!" (v. 21). Sure! If it emerged as a compliment, as the viability of the inheritance at another time, it is at the side, it helps the promise, never being its opponent.

He recalls, as he will do in the letter to the Romans, that the Law made sins explicit and evident. In a general way, the apostle affirms that the “Scripture”, the Old Testament, ended everything under sin so that the promise would become valid through faith in Jesus (v. 22).

But historically, before the manifestation of faith, the Law was a kind of tutor (v. 23). She served as a “schoolmaster” (paidagogos in Greek). Perhaps the best translation from the Greek term is teacher, instructor. The Law exercised the function of caring for the faithful and leading them to Christ. This is a very beautiful and positive image of the Law. But once Jesus and faith come, the teacher is no longer needed (v. 25).

in v. 26 the completion of the block begins. If the Law is a teacher, an instructor, only Jesus makes us children of God (v. 26). Obviously, this is a categorization that would not be welcomed by Jews and Judaizers, who used a series of classifications to determine who was spiritual and faithful to God.

Noteworthy is the pronoun change. If in the previous verses Paul used the first person plural – “we” (v. 23-25), therefore, including himself in what he wrote about, now he changes to the second person plural – “you”. Therefore, he excludes himself from his argument, applying what he says directly to the Galatians. Does this mean that what is said does not apply to him? Is he not the son of God? Had he not been baptized into Christ? Of course yes! But the strategy of putting oneself aside, to highlight the readers, seeks to make the application to them clearer.

He wants to make it clear that the Galatians are no longer under the care of a tutor, as they have, by faith, acquired the spiritual majority. They relate to God as children (v. 26). An unmistakable sign of this was they're being baptized into Christ (v. 27). The result is that there are no more categorizations and differences between people (v. 28), a central element of the Jewish religion, and one of the criteria by which Judaizing Christians were trying to convince the Galatians about the need for the Law. Now, in Christ, and through him alone, they become Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise (v. 29).

Questions and Friendship - Galatians 4:1-20

In this large block, Paul initially presents a detail, in an explanatory character (4.1-7), about what he had previously spoken (3.23-29). Then, using a question as he did in 3:1-5, he questions his readers again (4:8-11). Finally, the apostle makes use of the friendship argument to try to make himself heard (4:12-20).

In 4:1-7 we have a kind of explanatory note regarding the previous verses. Why is she needed? If he previously stated that, before faith came, everyone was subject to the law, now he complements the reasoning, using legal propositions to say that the heir, when a minor, does not enjoy his rights, being in practice equal to a slave ( 4.1). In the same way, he and the Galatians were also subject to the rudiments of the world (4:3). This situation changed with the coming of Jesus Christ, who allowed those who remained under the law to be adopted as sons by God (4:4-6). The present situation, therefore, is not one of slavery but of sonship (4.7).

Then (4:8-11) Paul becomes more direct and sharp. It focuses on the Galatians' past. Life without God was characterized by servitude to the rudiments of the world (4:8-9). It is interesting to note that Paul refrains from criticizing the listeners' polytheism. His argument does not focus on this aspect. For him, idolatry places the human being under the tyranny of “weak and poor rudiments” (4:9). Therefore, if the Jews were under the bondage of the Law before the manifestation of Jesus Christ, the Galatians were also enslaved. The problem, for Paulo, is that his readers want to submit again to slavery that, for ethnic and religious reasons, not to mention theological ones, did not concern them. Paul is so worried about the situation that he fears he has lost his job (4:11).

It is this concern that leads him to 4.12-20. For some commentators, the use of friendship ties as an argument indicates emotional intemperance on the part of the apostle. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The language is carefully chosen for the intended purpose. Paul is very emphatic. Terms and expressions such as “I beseech you” (4:12), “physical infirmity” (4:13), “you received me as an angel of God” (4:14), “you would have plucked out your eyes to give it to me” (4:15), “I have become is your enemy because he tells you the truth?” (4.16), “my children, for whom, again, I suffer birth pains” (4.19), set the emotional tone that runs through the entire text. What does Paul intend?

Initially, rescue the empathy of the Galatians. For Paul, he and his readers are equal (4:12). The strain on the relationship is evident when the apostle claims not to be offended (4:12). The rest of the pericope is developed in an attempt to rescue the relationship that seems to be almost lost. The terms listed in the preceding paragraph bear witness to this. Both Paul's effort to preach the gospel in the region and the loving welcome he experienced testify to the positive beginning of the relationship. However, the apostle appears to have become their enemy (4:16). This would be happening under the influence of people who wanted to separate Paul from the Galatians (4:17). How does Paul combat such influence? Calling upon herself the privilege of having been the mother of those Christians and being, for love of them, suffering birth pains again (4:19). The ending is not encouraging. Paul is not sure about them. On the contrary, he is “perplexed” (4:20).

I end with a reflection. In the context of the disputes between Paul and the Judaizers that have influenced the Galatians to reject their former mentor and his teaching, this text says a lot. It is a moment when Paul, in a way abandoning theological questions, appeals to what is most profound and true: relationship. In this, there are no masks, excuses, or subterfuges. It is a very intense moment, but it is only possible because of the history that Paulo built together with his readers.

I wonder how many leaders and pastors today would be able to put themselves in the apostle's shoes. I fear that most would be guided by two options. The first, faced with problems, would simply leave the field and migrate to another church where he could be understood and his ministry would be able to progress. After all, why should I continue to “punch a knife?” This is a business vision that is increasingly present in evangelical communities, far from the vision that the apostle Paul had of ministry: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you; and I fill up what is left of Christ's afflictions in my flesh for his body, which is the church” (Col 2:24).

The other possibility would be exactly the opposite of the first. The pastor would assume the role of martyr, of the one who, although right, suffers, in front of a church, according to him, wrong, corrupt, adulterous, that needs to be corrected, disciplined, and “learn who is in charge”. It is the “iron fist” ministry. Such postura.

For Freedom

Two verses in Galatians 5 mention freedom: 1 and 13. I. Before briefly discussing both, let's look at two translations widely used in Protestant churches: ARA (Almeida, Revised and Updated, SBB): For freedom, Christ set us free; therefore stand firm and do not bend again to a game of slavery. (v. 1) For you, brethren, were called to freedom. But do not use your liberty to give occasion to the flesh, but out of love serve one another. (v. 13) ACF (Corrected Bible, Faithful): Stand firm, therefore, in the freedom with which Christ has set us free, and do not put yourselves again under the yoke of servitude. (v. 1) For you, brethren, were called to freedom. Then do not use your liberty to give occasion to the flesh, but serve one another out of love. (v. 13) A. There is no semantic difference regarding v. 13, just different word choices and syntactic order. B. As for verse 1, there is a fundamental difference: ARA translates "for freedom Christ has set us free"; AFC "in the freedom with which Christ has set us free". The Greek preposition is in the dative case, and may indeed be interpreted as instrumental or final; thus, case grammar alone does not resolve the issue. The immediate co-text also does not help to decide the question, it allows for both possibilities. Verse 13, however, is illuminating - and both ARA and AFC miss the translation: "Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε" - the Greek preposition is epi - which Paul constantly uses in the sense of "based on" or "on the basis in". Thus, instead of "you were called to freedom", the more appropriate translation would be "you were called based on freedom (messianic liberation)". If so, then in v. 1 the best option will be "for freedom" (ARA). C. As is customary in the Christian translations of the NT, instead of Messiah we have the word, Christ. This distorts the Pauline sense, as it immediately refers to our post-Nicene/Chalcedonian Christological doctrine, and distances us from Pauline messianism. D. ARA and AFC supply the absent verb from the Greek text in the second part of v. 13; "do not use", I think it would be more appropriate to translate it like this: "do not let this freedom be an occasion/platform for the flesh" (and here Paul follows the same line as Rom 7:8.11, only in Rom it is "sin " which can serve as an occasion/platform for, through the Torah, to enslave us. The link between flesh/sin/Torah is shown in Gal 5:13-14: "be slaves (and not "serve yourselves", very simple) one another in love, for the fullness of the Torah, is found in one commandment - love your neighbor as yourself." The semantic game here is the same as in Romans 6-7: Messianic liberation places us in the realm of freedom, whose nature is bondage in love: to God and neighbor. Points out, in Galatians, that God does not appear in the equation... II. Notes for thinking about me above. More notes for reflection: Kant brilliantly simplified the game of freedom in What is the Enlightenment: Autonomy versus Heteronomy. Simplistic readers reduced freedom to self-satisfaction, losing sight of the Kan sense of autonomy ("I" am the source of the Law that governs me). In Paul, the game is similar: the Messiah frees humanity from heteronomy - from sin (it would be tempting to see here the Freudian drive towards death), from the flesh (the Freudian id), from the Torah (the Freudian superego). But the new freedom in the Messiah is intersubjective autonomy: I am the source of my ethics and morality: being a slave to my neighbor in love. And here we can play with Hegel, who speaks of love as the law of freedom, slavery is freedom... Just notes to think about... Based on the liberating act of the Messiah, we were freed from heteronomy and called to live in messianic autonomy: to be a slave to your neighbor in love.

Allegory – problem or solution? – 4.21-31 – Part II

The pericope is organized. It begins with a question (v. 21) addressed to the Galatians, as Paul has done previously (3:1-5; 4:9, 15-16), identified by the second person plural pronoun (you). Then the apostle himself answers the question (v. 22-30) using the allegory of the biblical text. The conclusion (v. 31) comes in the form of affirmation in which Paul himself includes himself, indicated by the first person plural pronoun (we, implied).

Since the heart of the discussion in the letter is the validity and interpretation of the Law, Paul returns to it with a question. He does not discuss the interpretation of the Law, but its very reason for being and, therefore, its relevance to the present time of its readers. For this, he takes as his starting point the high degree of reverence that the Galatians had for the Law (“those who want to be under the law”). His question is provocative: “Do you not hear the law?”. “Listening” reveals the practice of contact with the Scriptures at that time since there were practically no private copies of the sacred texts. Contact with them took place, as a rule, at meetings where liturgical readings were held. But the idea is also that it is not enough to listen but to understand, and apply.

In answering his question (v. 22-30) Paul enters the field of adversaries. After all, the legalists had taught and convinced the Galatian Christians to submit to the Law. Now the apostle enters this terrain to question the real understanding of the Law by the Galatians. And he does so using allegory. What is her role? Leave aside the argument that aims to convince, since it brings with it the idea that you beat the other (since he has doubts about the validity of this method – v. 20). The objective now is to lure the opponent through another path. It's treating him as an equal, as someone who knows. According to Betz, Paul “leads the Galatians to find the truth for themselves” (Hermeneia, Galatians, p. 240).

For Paul, at this moment “hearing” the Law means understanding its allegorical meaning.

In his exposition, Paul freely quotes the OT. After all, in saying that Abraham had two sons (v. 22) he omits others (cf. Gen. 25:1-6). But these do not matter for his allegory. More important than the children are their mothers: Hagar and Sarah (who are not mentioned but implied). They present the duality: freedom versus slavery, which is a theme developed in the letter (2.4; 3.26-28). Women represent two covenants, two ways in which God deals with human beings.

V. 22 and 23 present the selection of OT themes. From v. 24 Paul introduces the allegorical interpretation. Birth according to “the flesh” in a natural way and birth according to “the promise” supernaturally have meaning for Paul. There's the allegory. You have to understand that it comes out of nowhere. The text allows for this opening. It is as if the text itself asks us: what does what I have said mean? The one that comes from natural birth means the life that Israel had experienced and is experiencing at that moment, which according to Paul is one of slavery. This covenant comes from the slave Hagar and is linked to Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to Moses. Isaac, in turn, is the son of promise, free, before the Law and, therefore, without need to submit to it.

The conclusion that the Galatians are “children of promise, like Isaac” (v. 28) is not new. It was already stated in 3:29 in terms of the relationship with Christ. The novelty is that this fact implies the denial of filiation linked to Hagar and the slavery brought by the Law.

the v. 29 brings another application of the allegory. As in the past, when the one born under the flesh persecuted the one born according to the promise, now it is again. Christians are persecuted by Jews and legalistic Christians. What to do? Deny the slave's son and his covenant (v. 30). The two alliances are irreconcilable. So indirectly Paul is saying that Judaizers should not be part of the fellowship of Galatian Christians.

According to Betz, v. 31 concludes the block of 3.1-4.31 on the theme of freedom, which will be resumed from 5.1.

Paul includes himself in the conclusion (“we are”). He is also the son of the woman/free alliance. Why do you do this? Certainly to seek identification and proximity with the Galatians. By working the OT texts allegorically, developing statements that the Galatians would not only understand but also agree with, the apostle forges bonds of identity and communion.

Allegory – Problem or Solution? – 4.21-31 – Part I

Allegory is a serious hermeneutical problem. And this is from the beginning of the history of Christian interpretation. After all, a method that seems devoid of method or foundations is bound to be a problem. At least for historicist hermeneutics.

Paul concludes the previous section (4:20) by saying that he is “perplexed about you”, an expression that contains a high degree of discouragement. It seems that he has great doubts about his power of persuasion. Even the relational argument developed in 4.12-20 seems to have no effect. What to do? Use biblical allegory. For Paul, at least, it is the last and most important argument to be used. If we remember that he is concluding Probation, the moment in the letter when he tries to prove his position with the use of various arguments, it is surprising, at least to us Christian interpreters, that he has reserved the allegory for the end.

There is no space for in-depth discussions of the allegory in this post, but there is a basic question that we can address.

Historicist hermeneutics/exegesis presupposes the premise that biblical texts must testify to the reality of the events they describe. From this point of view, narrative texts refer the reader to the historical facts that are their foundation. And argumentative texts refer the reader to the historical context that produces the relationship between sender and recipient. Therefore, texts are always and indissolubly linked to the facts to which they bear witness.

Given this theoretical stance, any proposal that sees the text transcend the role of witness is seen negatively. The text must be a servant of history. If not, it becomes dangerous, as it opens up to uncontrollable meanings, as historicist hermeneutics would say. That is why the allegorical interpretation so present in the first centuries of Christianity was denied, mainly by the Protestant Reformation and by contemporary fundamentalist circles.

Is this concern with the liberation of meaning from biblical texts healthy? Perhaps, but the problem is inadequate or at least limiting the conception of text that such a perspective contains. After all, all text transcends. No text ends in itself. Every text is a starting point. And even historicists must agree with this statement. After all, for them, biblical texts are a starting point for historical reconstruction. This means that, for historicist hermeneutics, the text also transcends. The problem is that it is a limited and closed opening. The text leaves itself to immediately become a vassal of reconstructions, hypothetical, by the way, of historical facts.

Every text, from a pragmatic point of view, is unfinished. It brings proposals of meanings linked to its author. But understanding, which involves more than first sense, is open to the reader. This is more than a normal aspect of literary texts. Every reader, during and after reading, reflects on the meaning(s). The degree of approximation to what the author intended depends on numerous factors. Of course, the reader can reach conclusions that are different from what the text presents. But, in general, all reading presents a relationship between text and the constituent aspects of the reader's world that influence its understanding.

Therefore, when we read a work, we are thrown by it into several levels of reflection. In other words, the text transcends itself. And it's good that it is. The biblical text does not escape this process. As we read the Bible, we are also thrown forward, not backward, in search of reflections that make sense to us.

I say all this so that we understand that the allegory widely practiced in the beginnings of Christianity, and Galatians by Paul is part of this process of relationship between readers and texts. With the allegory, the interpreter asks himself about the expansion and deepening of the meaning of several texts. Is the text linked only to the past? Does it only concern narratives of events that occurred with this or that biblical man or woman? Not. Narratives are bridges to connect meanings and experiences.

I conclude by recalling that the allegory does not deny the historical aspect of the biblical text. We are not faced with an option: either the historical sense or the allegorical sense. This aporia is not true. Again, allegory transcends the historical sense but does not deny it.

Life Under Analysis – Law and Grace.

Once the large section of the letter in which Paul seeks to argue in favor of his theological positions is over, a new block begins, now with practical exhortations aimed at new positions on the part of the Galatians.

The block ranges from 5.1-to 6.10. And it can be divided into three units: 5:1-12, with warnings about submission to the Law (which will be covered in this message); 5:13-26, with warnings against the flesh; 6:1-10, with several exhortations of a positive character. From the way I propose the division, it is clear that the first two units have a predominantly negative character, while the last one is guided by a positive perspective.

As Júlio in his last post dealt with the first block, with the discussion about Christian freedom, I will make small notes on the text.

Chapter 5 begins by taking up the theme of the previous one: freedom. In 4:31 the apostle concludes his argument by stating that he and the Galatians, and, consequently, all Christians, are children of the freewoman, that is, of Sarah, children of the covenant of grace. Now he concretely develops this aspect. Unfortunately, given the religious context in which the Galatian Christians lived, Paul initially needs to clarify the price to be paid for them.

The theme of the Law returns. Theme and central point of contention in the letter. Point of support for the Judaizers who were infiltrated among the Galatians. And a subject to be clarified by Paul, which indeed was done in all his reasoning.

Now, however, there are no more arguments. On the contrary, categorical statements are made without fear. A central opposition is constructed: Law vs. grace. The concrete instrument of the Law with the Galatians is circumcision. And the concrete proof of attachment to grace is faith. They are irreconcilable elements and postures. Or live one or the other. Never both at the same time.

Moving from the concrete to the abstract, the fact that the Galatians or some of them were or had undergone circumcision meant, on a theological level, that they were bound by the Law and therefore disconnected from or beyond the reach of grace. With that, they became slaves of the Law, since it demands total fidelity. It is necessary to complete it all.

On the other hand, Paul urges them to live by faith, evidence of a relationship with Christ through grace. And that faith, necessarily, must result in concrete actions of love (v. 6).

Paul takes advantage of the exhortations to lash out at the Judaizers (v. 7-8) and to send a message: such people will suffer condemnation (v. 10), without further specification, letting us see, through the veiled language, that possibly the Galatians and such people knew what it was about.

A question that eludes Paul's argument is in v. 11: "But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision...". It is not possible to define clearly what this means. Hypothetically one might think that at some point the Judaizers used as an argument to weaken Paul the fact that he was previously a more radical legalistic Jew than all of them. Perhaps one might also think that the apostle's enemies were spreading false information, saying that Paul was still in favor of circumcision.

Thinking contextually, it seems to me that the most important thing in this text is Paul's call to consistency. Or if you are on one side or the other. It is not possible to live on both sides. One cannot submit to circumcision and at the same time claim to live under grace.

How difficult this is, especially in terms of the Christian life. We have a tendency towards inconsistency. With the same readiness with which we affirm that a friend or dear brother, in the face of an error, must be understood by others, in the face of the same error we accuse and judge others with whom we have no affinity.

What is the extent of grace in our lives? In what areas is it present, manifesting itself through faith and love? What is the extent of the Law in us? In what areas does it manifest itself through metaphorical circumcisions?